3 is self written by Brad Bradshaw that it would create a "state research institute" and establish a 9 person research board led by Bradshaw himself. That board could also determine what diseases would benefit from medical marijuana treatment.

I've had several people ask, so to answer the question, WHY are we advocating for Missouri voters to vote YES on amendment 2, NO on amendment 3, and NO on proposition C this November 6th, rather than just voting yes on all of the above:

ONLY ONE initiative will stand. There can be ONLY one winner and we want it to be the BEST option.

YES on Amendment 2
- Amendment 2 is patient friendly and doctor approved.
- It has strong, reasonable regulations.
- It is endorsed by a large amount of "regular people"- doctors, patients, lawyers, advocates, and political groups.
- It's taxes go to fund programs for helping veterans.
- It is well researched and written. 👍

NO on Amendment 3
- Highest taxes on medical marijuana in the country.
- Puts control in the hand of 1 man (personal injury lawyer, Brad Bradshaw) to determine who gets commercial licenses.
- Puts control in the hands of 1 man to determine qualifying conditions to be able to utilize medical marijuana)
- Basically puts control of all Missouri Medical Marijuana in the hands of Brad Bradshaw 👎

NO on Proposition C
- Proposition C differs from the others in that it is a statutory amendment, which means lawmakers can make changes to the language, qualifying conditions, and regulations at any time, totally changing what the voters actually voted for

And by that, I assume, that if all 3 fail, then no legal marijuana?

I was not aware any marijuana initiatives were on the ballot here. The local paper prints everything we will see on the ballot the week before the election, but that sure doesn't give a person much time to research before voting if there is something on there you weren't expecting. Appreciate the heads up this place provides

__________________
I believe what Al Gore is trying to say is we are all going to freeze to death of heat exhaustion.
I have prepared by buying a heavy winter coat with air-conditioning

I was not aware any marijuana initiatives were on the ballot here. The local paper prints everything we will see on the ballot the week before the election, but that sure doesn't give a person much time to research before voting if there is something on there you weren't expecting. Appreciate the heads up this place provides

Prop C can be construed as a backdoor into allowing municipal bans on medicinal if I understand things correctly.

If we stipulate that Amendment 3 is an unacceptable boondoggle riding on the back of medicinal legalization, the question becomes do I vote for both of the other options or do I only vote for the one I think is best. It seems to me that the answer depends on how popular we think medicinal legalization is in the state.

Scenario 1 - Legalization is popular by a wide margin —> Yes on 2; No on C. Or, if you prefer C, Yes on C; No on 2. Strategic voting like this will reduce the support for both 2 and C, reducing the probability that legalization of any kind will pass. That’s ok if you start with a big margin because you can afford some degradation as the price of trying to boost one option over the other.

Scenario 2 - Passage is already questionable as the medicinal legalization concept is barely more popular than the status quo if it’s more popular at all. —> Yes on both 2 and C. You can’t afford support degradation if you want some form of medicinal legalization to pass.

So which scenario are we in? Is this a close call or does polling indicate substantially more support than opposition?

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

I've had several people ask, so to answer the question, WHY are we advocating for Missouri voters to vote YES on amendment 2, NO on amendment 3, and NO on proposition C this November 6th, rather than just voting yes on all of the above:

ONLY ONE initiative will stand. There can be ONLY one winner and we want it to be the BEST option.

YES on Amendment 2
- Amendment 2 is patient friendly and doctor approved.
- It has strong, reasonable regulations.
- It is endorsed by a large amount of "regular people"- doctors, patients, lawyers, advocates, and political groups.
- It's taxes go to fund programs for helping veterans.
- It is well researched and written. 👍

NO on Amendment 3
- Highest taxes on medical marijuana in the country.
- Puts control in the hand of 1 man (personal injury lawyer, Brad Bradshaw) to determine who gets commercial licenses.
- Puts control in the hands of 1 man to determine qualifying conditions to be able to utilize medical marijuana)
- Basically puts control of all Missouri Medical Marijuana in the hands of Brad Bradshaw 👎

NO on Proposition C
- Proposition C differs from the others in that it is a statutory amendment, which means lawmakers can make changes to the language, qualifying conditions, and regulations at any time, totally changing what the voters actually voted for

Bumped to remind everyone.

YES on 2
NO on 3
NO on C

Please help our veterans. Please remind everyone you know and have them remind everyone they know and so on and so on...........

Is case it isn't clear, I couldn't give a **** either way about ganja legislation. Never smoked it, never had an urge. Never held anything against anyone who did. Never saw it as the panacea people advocate, but blase about it about on par with any other 'herbal remedy.'

Only thing I have any passion for, is there is strong evidence is no good for developing brains. So there needs to be care about normalizing to the point where it's on par with beer and wine in the minds of teens and adolescents, both in terms of taboo and availability.